Emasculated men are rarely ever rogues; not unless pimpled by heterosexuality into hearkening unto the voice of conscience that urges them to sweat as other men do, who are not emasculated. And this truth is known by enough, even when naive, for the reputation of a rogue to be cross never lifted by a Fairy. Thus I laugh at the rogues, who seem to be increasing in number, striving to give the impression that they were ever Fairies. But I do have a few words for those of them that believe they can ever be Manes.
The Lords In Fairy Empires (also known as The Fairies Confraternity) is a fraternity that was found for Manes, and for Fairies; the former being ready to lay their lives down for the latter. And the nobility of the warrior is neither that of the rogue that rapes, nor that of the thug that robs, and never that of the thief that defrauds; but as much that of the Mane as that of he who said:
Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
And therefore, this I say to he who bears not the burden of emasculation, yet would that he be Mane:
Greater love has no man than this, that a Mane is sworn to give his life for L.I.F.E. - to the Fairy, even if notorious enough to be known as faggot.
And neither rogue, nor thug, nor even the cowardly thief can live with the nobility ever that of the man that is ready to "lay down his life for his friends."
Ikoro Iyineleda.
1st, September, 2010.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Hypocrisy, Homosexuality, And Religion
An Answer to the Parson
"Why of the sheep do you not learn peace?"
"Because I don't want you to shear my fleece."
- William Blake.
The Garden Of Love
I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.
And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And "Thou shalt not" writ over the door;
So I turn'd to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore;
And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tomb-stones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires.
- William Blake.
In this generation, "filled with homosexual graves;" I would say - emasculated tomb-stones wherein the beauty of fairies would be flowering; had they not been imprisoned by the bricks of law, and stoned by the rocks of religion, both of which characterise the folly ever damned by those that see too clearly not to know the loser is always the far loss.
How often those stones of religion are no more than the cunning endeavours of man to keep man down can be clearly seen in the military conquests with which the three major religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) launched their spread; and the hypocritical peace by which their dominance is maintained, when established. A hypocrisy obvious in the manner by which the most vile sin ever condemned (be it by the intolerance of religious persecution, or by the tolerance of its peaceful conquests) is practised often enough by the highest authorities of the most stern religions to see the truth in the words, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
In this day and age (despite the even more obvious fact that the promiscuous are ever more often women than men) the "her" that the consequent persecution invites stones to be flung at is so much more often a "he" in her shoes, that the president of this generation's most powerful nation almost lost his office - merely because he had an extra-marital affair.
He was extremely fortunate. Others have been even more unlucky victims of the emasculation of societies that should be ruled by power-brokers, rather than presided over by authority-figures (mere figure-heads that should be the power object the male ever is; rather than the pleasure object that her being fortifies the female with - even if only by the hands of no more than one of such males). Other such cultures of authority figure-heading caused the tragedy that occured in Finland; where a Foreign Minister not as lucky as the president referred to above was finally forced to give up his office, after admitting to the bombardment of a stripper with mobile phone text messages of a sexually suggestive nature.
In Malaysia, the intrusion into the rights of a Health Minister was completely ignored; while the privacy the intrusion abused with a widely-circulated video recording of an adulterous escapade by him, gave rise to enough "shock" - to quote the word with which the consequent hypocritical jeering was recorded by the Press - to have him resign from the country's cabinet.
And, to prove how victims of such societal hypocrisy - risen out of religion, even when not cloaked by its morality - have most often been men, especially when emasculated (a hypocrisy that ignores the promiscuity I have referred to above; and the stones that Jesus condemned, flung more often at the men than at the women - however promiscuous the latter might be) a high-ranking officer within the virility of American military - back in those days before the word "gay" proved homosexuality having become as acceptable to society as lesbianism ever was, at the very least - had to commit suicide the night before he was to testify to a New York County grand jury investigating his homosexual orientation.
The orientation had not even yet been proven.
I do not believe any woman has ever been a suicide before, merely because homosexuality in her was unveiled before the public. Rather, the same society that locks the homosexual up with bricks of morality, and stones him to death with religious rocks of murder, persecution, and abuse; condones lesbianism to an extent that has adolescent girls in Nigeria flaunt it today, even with absolutely no inclination towards the orientation in them.
Shame is a burden men bear as easily as women have a conscience; and the murder of the emasculated - even when the truth that is a characteristic part of their nature is uttered along with their being prof., and not prophet - is carried out by Herod and Potiphar as easily as the wife of the one lusted after the far loss, and the wife of the other cast her eyes upon the pen that is. Thus the look behind that would never have been that of Lot; despite the pleasure that would have drawn the look being more male, than the female that had his wife become a pillar of salt.
All such victims of hypocrisy have always fallen by the hands of a morality based on religion, that refuses to separate a man's private life from that with which he works in public. As though the office and the bedroom are as similar as the platonic relationships that should rule the one, and the erotica that is a characteristic feature of the other.
As a typical example, in Yorubaland - where polygamy is not only condoned, but a fact of life - a practitioner of the tradition would not throw stones at one who does not practise it, merely because the latter holds a public office. Yet, even in that same culture, an emasculated man that refuses to have his sexuality limited by the boundaries of religion is instantly struck down by the hypocrisy of its society; be the excuse for the villainy an accusation of homosexuality, or that with which the word iranu condemns even his natural inclination towards heterosexuality.
Consent between adults of legal age are the key words, and not the hypocrisy that would damn one of the most popular American presidents of all time - if it could. And the constraints which the hypocrisy of such religious morality holds for those that may not be as popular, or as powerful, can be seen in the Yoruba word for one of such religions.......imole. Knowledge acquired through distress.
Very few of the educated, even when practitioners of the religion, realise that the name rose out of the persecution that is a cross borne by the emasculated - be he Christian, Moslem, or Jew; the persecution that will be burden should he profess the religion as one who is an emasculated man has to live a life; persecution that would be perpetrated by the religion itself - right in the hands of authorities of it that worship with their own lives vices such persecution is supposedly meant to punish, or to prevent. And the fanaticism with which the pubescent naivete of emasculation is enforced can be seen in the speed with which he would be murdered, be it by the quiet cunning of Christianity, or by the stone-flinging of the Moslem; should he finally renounce the religion, and strive to live a honest secular life - most especially as the homosexual his emasculation would usually have him be, if wise; and also not only as a consequence of the power and affluence society ever strives to deny the emasculated, but usually as a consequence too of the position he would lose to the hypocrisy of societal morals and religious tenets. For his renunciation of religion would be as damned by it as would be his emasculation by the secular world wherein he should then live in peace.
Religion is basically no more than an attempt by societal hypocrisy to keep the honesty of lust from becoming the purity of passion. And a man (or a woman) that has admitted the presence of a homosexual orientation in him, has confessed his natural interest in sexuality to an extent that makes it impossible to bring in the religion that would she be frigid, or he be a eunuch. Hence the homosexuality flaunted by women that live a life too secular to be marked by morality, or stained by religion. It is the only means by which, instinctively, or with all due and conscious awareness, she can denounce both of those two boundaries as actively as a man does with his weed and his wine. And hence the bisexuality that is the usually inevitable consequence of a confession to homosexuality, in countries wherein the orientation is condoned enough to be acceptable - be it amongst men, or amongst women. For the confession, as has been stated above, is no more than an admission of interest in sexuality too secular to be religious; and natural heterosexual instincts will always rear up - even if more often in the women that will still recieve advances from heterosexual men, however lesbian, ugly, or dull she may be; than in the men who (even when not emasculated, even if actually bisexual) find the ease with which homosexuality satiates too great for them to bother with the conquest that is the hallmark of the male, when heterosexual.
And thus the softened surface (and quite often as physical as it is mental) that the homosexual usually finds himself with; in a world wherein he does not have to move a muscle for his sexual appetites to be satisfied, even by supposedly heterosexual men. And thus the hardened exterior (be it no more than mental, or physical enough to have her known - once upon a time - by such derogatory titles such as butch, and dyke) that a severe denunciation of both morality and religion by a woman has accompany an eventual homosexual inclination; with the consequent loss of the passivity of her feminity that she does indeed need to lose, not only to ward off attacks - be it verbal, or otherwise - that would instantly be her lot in a society dominated by the hypocrisy of morality, and religion; but also to conquer as the men do, in a world wherein a woman she would like to sleep with needs to move as many muscles as the homosexual male has to, before her sexual appetite is satisfied by the sex that accompanies heterosexual conquests - however ugly she may be. This hardening of the subconscious in the lesbian (most especially when more homosexual than heterosexual; and even when not obvious enough to the individual woman to be seen by her as conscious) is that which has made lesbianism propagated as actively by them, in certain societies, as religions are wont to push their own tenets down the throats of others - though subtly enough to have the former insist its all fun and games, and no road to salvation. And, according to the propagandists, innocent enough to have homosexual pornagraphy labelled pornography only when male.
Heterosexual men boast of their sexual activities with the same fun and games, even when with no more than a wife. A lesbian is no more than a woman whose sexual orientation rouses in her the need to compete with the male, as the male does; that her sexual appetites may be satisfied. Thus, she will inevitably grow a stance as hardened against the rules and regulations of conservative morality and religion as the homosexual is softened by the solitude that severes him from society.
The obvious consequences?
The coarse bisexuality that is as much a mark of the supposedly heterosexual male, as it is a characteristic of the lesbian - however homosexual she may claim to be. And the more lesbian she does lay claim to as being her sexual orientation, the more vulgar she eventually ends up becoming - as hardened by the orientation, with all the obscenity of the accompanying insensitivity, as men are wont to be when they denounce both morality and religion enough to smoke, drink, and take drugs.
The feminity flaunted by quite a number of homosexuals is no more than the male version of that hardened resistance to the hypocrisy of morality, and of religion. In a culture where the orientation is a fact of life, the most masculine men can be as homosexual as the pansy that flirts as she. In other cultures, the stubborn renunciation of hypocrisy eventually has the homosexual develop the delicacy of sensitivity, and have it become as much a part of him as it has always been known to be a part of the heterosexual woman.
Women always want to fall in love. When heterosexual. In homosexual cultures, the men do - much more often, even when they believe themselves to be heterosexual. For the characteristic passivity of the homosexual is all that has him succumb to society's approval of heterosexuality much more easily than he would were he heterosexual - and thereby aggressive enough to probably also have his heterosexuality be actually bisexual. This peaceful passivity it is that has the ideal companion marriages more homosexual than the lesbian ones have ever been. And the heartless castration of the purity of male love, which is always homosexual (even in religions that confess the truth of that purity with words such as, "And Jonathan loved him as his own soul") is that which has its hypocrisy damned as clearly as the love male companion marriages glorify, where the female ones do no more than put on exhibition the bisexuality in lesbianism.
Whether the reversal of sex roles always leads to a homosexual culture, or homosexual cultures always bring about a reversal of sex roles, is that which I am yet to reach a conclusion over. But homosexual cultures have always been imbued with a honest approach to sexuality that defies the hypocrisy prevalent in societies wherein heterosexuality is such a fact of life, it is introduced to the child only after his body has passed the peak of sexual maturity - in some countries, by the age of twenty-one years. The wisdom the primitive have, that defies the bisexual decadence that - truly - is a characteristic feature of most homosexual cultures, does not need an in-depth study of the customs of such tribes to be proven. And all one has to do is take a journey through Alex Haley's Roots, to see the folly in the morality that insists a child must be introduced to sex and such, only after his interest in it has waned.
True independence not only consists of the facts one must face in life, but also the right to make a choice. Thus the hypocrisy that accompanies the imposition of emasculation; be the imposition enforced by morality, or by religion.
Islam usually basks more under that hypocrisy, than under the cunning that is more often a female attribute. Thus Islamic countries murder emasculated men that live within its boundaries, yet would that the life be in the secular; as regularly as cultures in less developed countries do, even outside the restraints of religion, and - in the secular - not only when they're homosexual, as they usually are; but the minute they're suspected of the honesty of lust in absolutely any way that is not limited by the boundaries of marriage.
Christians are much more cunning, probably because their own religion rose as a consequence of the life of a man that had sympathy for the woman. With all the knowledge at their disposal, they it is that strive to drive the "You no need am" theology down the throats of men the most. By struggling to give the impression that all he or she needs is a spouse to satisfy the natural appetites of the body with, all he or she needs is a livelihood to satisfy the natural need for sustenance through, all he or she needs is a church wherein can be obtained the socialization even their cruel cunning cannot deny is necessary; they lock both men and women up in prisons that are built by bricks of law and stones of religion, and then impose upon them the labour that their cruelty deigns to have other more honest authorities believe is better than the blood the Moslems would have drawn from such emasculated men - should he renounce the religious, or live in it as life should indeed and actually be lived; with the sex, the power, the position, and the prosperity being actively pursued.
As personal examples of how such hypocrisy of morality, always fuelled by religion, limits the emasculated in a world ruled by envious hypocrites for whom the sex should always be with the sweat - however unproductive the sweat may be - I have ordered ring-tones for my hand-set before that were quietly denied me, obviously because the tones were secular.
The impression being given?
I had to be Christian.
I have been denied access to sites today that are supposed to be "adult," and therefore made inaccessible to my thirty and more years of age.
The impression being given?
Oh, I have to be Christian.
I have had other such products denied me, by unappointed guardians and trustees.......
"whose fathers I would have dis-
dained
to set with the dogs of my flock"
had it not been the emasculation that, though being the hallmark of the Fairy Mane, would nevertheless have them deny him an adult life with words such as.......
"I cannot allow him to......."
And all for reasons no more than that envy of which I have written - shameless enough to be with a cold silence that makes me have to admire the Moslems; who don't bother with such cunning, but - in days of old - simply kill off the emasculated that insists he's not religious; with as much conscience as that with which they seal his anus, today.
"Adult" entertainment, in the truest sense of the word, is no more than entertainment for pubescent adults - emasculated men, and the average woman; who have been as exposed to sex and such as the adolescent for whom the thrill is as much of a pleasure as the act can be. For the minute you're smiled into being granted that right to "adult" entertainment, you're being called "a dolt" - no more, no less. A ten year old boy with the independence a man should have, if indeed adult, would buy such products with absolutely none of the hypocrites behind the "at long last" smiles of consent raising an eye-brow.
From the blatant frankness with which the older generation admits the constraints with which it limits the emasculated is due to no more than the envy the former has for the opportunities of the latter, when young; to the shameless hypocrisy with which those closer to my own generation still stubbornly cling to the "You no need am" tenets; it got to a stage in my life today where I had to decide that seven tee-shirts would soon be bought by me, with the words "I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN! IF YOU COME WITH THEIR WORDS, STAY AWAY FROM ME!!!" emblazoned on them.
Religion is no more than limitation. That is why it is the greatest excuse used by society's bullies to enforce the boundaries of emasculation. Supposed vices that are more of sight than sin, when condemned by the individual, though condoned by Scripture; have had the enforcement of their prohibition - even when capital - been with such a rigid fanaticism that the number of books removed from Christian scripture and into hiding, by its authorities in days of old, is almost as much as that which the naive Christian studies today as his Bible.
I forget whose words they are, but it has often been said: Religion is the opium of the people. And who are the people if not the masses thronging to mosques and churches to find a solution to problems reared by nothing other than emasculation. The poor, the weak, the down-trodden. The defenceless helpless that even the most fanatical religions know they don't dare behead, were they not emasculated - or, at the very least, without risking a full-scale war. Even should they that would have been beheaded be self-confessed homosexuals.
Little wonder the most religious people are always the educated, formal education being always accompanied by such limitations that it is almost a synonym for emasculation.
The hypocrisy behind religion - and the insults that the wise emasculated should shower on the ridiculously cunning Christians who strive to enforce it with their empty-headed preaching - was aptly condemned by even The Christ himself, who told such as they:
Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourself and you hindered those who were entering.
I believe in those words of The Christ to such an extent that I enjoin all those who read that which I write, and agree with my words, to shower no more than the deserved scorn of insult - verbal, or otherwise - on those hypocrites that call themselves his followers, who would that others do the following while walking withing the boundaries of emasculation; up to that extent that they do all to give the impression that I can ever do the following as a Christian again.
For (unlike that which the world's great religions are supposed to teach, even though that which they rarely ever do preach) righteousness is not the handmaiden of ascetism. Thus the impression (most often given by the hypocrisy of the senselessy empty-headed "folly set in many high places;" and the covetuousness of she whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters) that the words "Be holy, for I am holy," means an absolute absence of sin even while in the flesh; undermines the words of he whom they most often claim to set their hope on:
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
And what, indeed, is the truth?
If we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
A renunciation of the body, while yet in the body; is just as admirable as it is inadvisable. And both the libertine and the nymphomaniac can be as righteous as the austere monk; as long as he rapes not, and she walks not down highways stark naked.
If only the ignorant knew what little difference there is between the two. For touch is to the woman what sight is to the man (not when it comes to erections, true; but definitely when it comes to the moisture that invites the phallus) and a woman is as aroused during rape as often as the arousal humiliates her.
The nude on a highway humiliates a principled man just as easily, and just as much.
To put it in clearer terms: imagine the president of your country standing before a podium, before the electorate, before the public. And then place also the nude before him, and ask yourself this question, "Who was assaulted - the nude? Or the president, most especially if his reaction is with an erection."
The applause that would follow the erection would certainly be such as had the political officers I referred to above lose their appointments, and would thereby answer your question.
However, where the consent is on both sides, then.......
pick your partners, choose your stance
in rank obeisance to the dance.
Be they two or two hundred; yes, and indeed - and be the supposed immorality camouflaged by the respectability of polygamy, or bared by the righteousness of honesty.
Righteousness is that which both morality and religion should espouse, and not the limitations of an ascetism that may not necessarily be inbued with the virtues of doing good. "This I command you, to love one another;" and ignore the hypocrisy that would the love be always confined by the limitations of lust, when lost.
Therefore, the protection from the blood-let (be it physical, mental, or otherwise) that has always been a consequence of the insistence upon his rights by the homosexual renouncing the hypocrisy of both morality and religion, is one of the most important priorities of the Lords In Fairy Empires - the protection of the Fairies (the emasculated of such homosexuals) thereby flowering under the auspices of The Fairies Confraternity; and be the flowering imbued with the principles by which the Lords have to live as Manes (both being members who are to maintain that protection; with neither friend, nor foe) or devoid of absolutely all ties with either morality, or religion - regardless of how licentious the life may then be said to be. For the most important word still remains "consent;" and the right to live is the right of the living - regardless of the emasculation with which others see him as dead.
Ikoro Iyineleda.
August, 2010.
"Why of the sheep do you not learn peace?"
"Because I don't want you to shear my fleece."
- William Blake.
The Garden Of Love
I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.
And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And "Thou shalt not" writ over the door;
So I turn'd to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore;
And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tomb-stones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires.
- William Blake.
In this generation, "filled with homosexual graves;" I would say - emasculated tomb-stones wherein the beauty of fairies would be flowering; had they not been imprisoned by the bricks of law, and stoned by the rocks of religion, both of which characterise the folly ever damned by those that see too clearly not to know the loser is always the far loss.
How often those stones of religion are no more than the cunning endeavours of man to keep man down can be clearly seen in the military conquests with which the three major religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) launched their spread; and the hypocritical peace by which their dominance is maintained, when established. A hypocrisy obvious in the manner by which the most vile sin ever condemned (be it by the intolerance of religious persecution, or by the tolerance of its peaceful conquests) is practised often enough by the highest authorities of the most stern religions to see the truth in the words, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
In this day and age (despite the even more obvious fact that the promiscuous are ever more often women than men) the "her" that the consequent persecution invites stones to be flung at is so much more often a "he" in her shoes, that the president of this generation's most powerful nation almost lost his office - merely because he had an extra-marital affair.
He was extremely fortunate. Others have been even more unlucky victims of the emasculation of societies that should be ruled by power-brokers, rather than presided over by authority-figures (mere figure-heads that should be the power object the male ever is; rather than the pleasure object that her being fortifies the female with - even if only by the hands of no more than one of such males). Other such cultures of authority figure-heading caused the tragedy that occured in Finland; where a Foreign Minister not as lucky as the president referred to above was finally forced to give up his office, after admitting to the bombardment of a stripper with mobile phone text messages of a sexually suggestive nature.
In Malaysia, the intrusion into the rights of a Health Minister was completely ignored; while the privacy the intrusion abused with a widely-circulated video recording of an adulterous escapade by him, gave rise to enough "shock" - to quote the word with which the consequent hypocritical jeering was recorded by the Press - to have him resign from the country's cabinet.
And, to prove how victims of such societal hypocrisy - risen out of religion, even when not cloaked by its morality - have most often been men, especially when emasculated (a hypocrisy that ignores the promiscuity I have referred to above; and the stones that Jesus condemned, flung more often at the men than at the women - however promiscuous the latter might be) a high-ranking officer within the virility of American military - back in those days before the word "gay" proved homosexuality having become as acceptable to society as lesbianism ever was, at the very least - had to commit suicide the night before he was to testify to a New York County grand jury investigating his homosexual orientation.
The orientation had not even yet been proven.
I do not believe any woman has ever been a suicide before, merely because homosexuality in her was unveiled before the public. Rather, the same society that locks the homosexual up with bricks of morality, and stones him to death with religious rocks of murder, persecution, and abuse; condones lesbianism to an extent that has adolescent girls in Nigeria flaunt it today, even with absolutely no inclination towards the orientation in them.
Shame is a burden men bear as easily as women have a conscience; and the murder of the emasculated - even when the truth that is a characteristic part of their nature is uttered along with their being prof., and not prophet - is carried out by Herod and Potiphar as easily as the wife of the one lusted after the far loss, and the wife of the other cast her eyes upon the pen that is. Thus the look behind that would never have been that of Lot; despite the pleasure that would have drawn the look being more male, than the female that had his wife become a pillar of salt.
All such victims of hypocrisy have always fallen by the hands of a morality based on religion, that refuses to separate a man's private life from that with which he works in public. As though the office and the bedroom are as similar as the platonic relationships that should rule the one, and the erotica that is a characteristic feature of the other.
As a typical example, in Yorubaland - where polygamy is not only condoned, but a fact of life - a practitioner of the tradition would not throw stones at one who does not practise it, merely because the latter holds a public office. Yet, even in that same culture, an emasculated man that refuses to have his sexuality limited by the boundaries of religion is instantly struck down by the hypocrisy of its society; be the excuse for the villainy an accusation of homosexuality, or that with which the word iranu condemns even his natural inclination towards heterosexuality.
Consent between adults of legal age are the key words, and not the hypocrisy that would damn one of the most popular American presidents of all time - if it could. And the constraints which the hypocrisy of such religious morality holds for those that may not be as popular, or as powerful, can be seen in the Yoruba word for one of such religions.......imole. Knowledge acquired through distress.
Very few of the educated, even when practitioners of the religion, realise that the name rose out of the persecution that is a cross borne by the emasculated - be he Christian, Moslem, or Jew; the persecution that will be burden should he profess the religion as one who is an emasculated man has to live a life; persecution that would be perpetrated by the religion itself - right in the hands of authorities of it that worship with their own lives vices such persecution is supposedly meant to punish, or to prevent. And the fanaticism with which the pubescent naivete of emasculation is enforced can be seen in the speed with which he would be murdered, be it by the quiet cunning of Christianity, or by the stone-flinging of the Moslem; should he finally renounce the religion, and strive to live a honest secular life - most especially as the homosexual his emasculation would usually have him be, if wise; and also not only as a consequence of the power and affluence society ever strives to deny the emasculated, but usually as a consequence too of the position he would lose to the hypocrisy of societal morals and religious tenets. For his renunciation of religion would be as damned by it as would be his emasculation by the secular world wherein he should then live in peace.
Religion is basically no more than an attempt by societal hypocrisy to keep the honesty of lust from becoming the purity of passion. And a man (or a woman) that has admitted the presence of a homosexual orientation in him, has confessed his natural interest in sexuality to an extent that makes it impossible to bring in the religion that would she be frigid, or he be a eunuch. Hence the homosexuality flaunted by women that live a life too secular to be marked by morality, or stained by religion. It is the only means by which, instinctively, or with all due and conscious awareness, she can denounce both of those two boundaries as actively as a man does with his weed and his wine. And hence the bisexuality that is the usually inevitable consequence of a confession to homosexuality, in countries wherein the orientation is condoned enough to be acceptable - be it amongst men, or amongst women. For the confession, as has been stated above, is no more than an admission of interest in sexuality too secular to be religious; and natural heterosexual instincts will always rear up - even if more often in the women that will still recieve advances from heterosexual men, however lesbian, ugly, or dull she may be; than in the men who (even when not emasculated, even if actually bisexual) find the ease with which homosexuality satiates too great for them to bother with the conquest that is the hallmark of the male, when heterosexual.
And thus the softened surface (and quite often as physical as it is mental) that the homosexual usually finds himself with; in a world wherein he does not have to move a muscle for his sexual appetites to be satisfied, even by supposedly heterosexual men. And thus the hardened exterior (be it no more than mental, or physical enough to have her known - once upon a time - by such derogatory titles such as butch, and dyke) that a severe denunciation of both morality and religion by a woman has accompany an eventual homosexual inclination; with the consequent loss of the passivity of her feminity that she does indeed need to lose, not only to ward off attacks - be it verbal, or otherwise - that would instantly be her lot in a society dominated by the hypocrisy of morality, and religion; but also to conquer as the men do, in a world wherein a woman she would like to sleep with needs to move as many muscles as the homosexual male has to, before her sexual appetite is satisfied by the sex that accompanies heterosexual conquests - however ugly she may be. This hardening of the subconscious in the lesbian (most especially when more homosexual than heterosexual; and even when not obvious enough to the individual woman to be seen by her as conscious) is that which has made lesbianism propagated as actively by them, in certain societies, as religions are wont to push their own tenets down the throats of others - though subtly enough to have the former insist its all fun and games, and no road to salvation. And, according to the propagandists, innocent enough to have homosexual pornagraphy labelled pornography only when male.
Heterosexual men boast of their sexual activities with the same fun and games, even when with no more than a wife. A lesbian is no more than a woman whose sexual orientation rouses in her the need to compete with the male, as the male does; that her sexual appetites may be satisfied. Thus, she will inevitably grow a stance as hardened against the rules and regulations of conservative morality and religion as the homosexual is softened by the solitude that severes him from society.
The obvious consequences?
The coarse bisexuality that is as much a mark of the supposedly heterosexual male, as it is a characteristic of the lesbian - however homosexual she may claim to be. And the more lesbian she does lay claim to as being her sexual orientation, the more vulgar she eventually ends up becoming - as hardened by the orientation, with all the obscenity of the accompanying insensitivity, as men are wont to be when they denounce both morality and religion enough to smoke, drink, and take drugs.
The feminity flaunted by quite a number of homosexuals is no more than the male version of that hardened resistance to the hypocrisy of morality, and of religion. In a culture where the orientation is a fact of life, the most masculine men can be as homosexual as the pansy that flirts as she. In other cultures, the stubborn renunciation of hypocrisy eventually has the homosexual develop the delicacy of sensitivity, and have it become as much a part of him as it has always been known to be a part of the heterosexual woman.
Women always want to fall in love. When heterosexual. In homosexual cultures, the men do - much more often, even when they believe themselves to be heterosexual. For the characteristic passivity of the homosexual is all that has him succumb to society's approval of heterosexuality much more easily than he would were he heterosexual - and thereby aggressive enough to probably also have his heterosexuality be actually bisexual. This peaceful passivity it is that has the ideal companion marriages more homosexual than the lesbian ones have ever been. And the heartless castration of the purity of male love, which is always homosexual (even in religions that confess the truth of that purity with words such as, "And Jonathan loved him as his own soul") is that which has its hypocrisy damned as clearly as the love male companion marriages glorify, where the female ones do no more than put on exhibition the bisexuality in lesbianism.
Whether the reversal of sex roles always leads to a homosexual culture, or homosexual cultures always bring about a reversal of sex roles, is that which I am yet to reach a conclusion over. But homosexual cultures have always been imbued with a honest approach to sexuality that defies the hypocrisy prevalent in societies wherein heterosexuality is such a fact of life, it is introduced to the child only after his body has passed the peak of sexual maturity - in some countries, by the age of twenty-one years. The wisdom the primitive have, that defies the bisexual decadence that - truly - is a characteristic feature of most homosexual cultures, does not need an in-depth study of the customs of such tribes to be proven. And all one has to do is take a journey through Alex Haley's Roots, to see the folly in the morality that insists a child must be introduced to sex and such, only after his interest in it has waned.
True independence not only consists of the facts one must face in life, but also the right to make a choice. Thus the hypocrisy that accompanies the imposition of emasculation; be the imposition enforced by morality, or by religion.
Islam usually basks more under that hypocrisy, than under the cunning that is more often a female attribute. Thus Islamic countries murder emasculated men that live within its boundaries, yet would that the life be in the secular; as regularly as cultures in less developed countries do, even outside the restraints of religion, and - in the secular - not only when they're homosexual, as they usually are; but the minute they're suspected of the honesty of lust in absolutely any way that is not limited by the boundaries of marriage.
Christians are much more cunning, probably because their own religion rose as a consequence of the life of a man that had sympathy for the woman. With all the knowledge at their disposal, they it is that strive to drive the "You no need am" theology down the throats of men the most. By struggling to give the impression that all he or she needs is a spouse to satisfy the natural appetites of the body with, all he or she needs is a livelihood to satisfy the natural need for sustenance through, all he or she needs is a church wherein can be obtained the socialization even their cruel cunning cannot deny is necessary; they lock both men and women up in prisons that are built by bricks of law and stones of religion, and then impose upon them the labour that their cruelty deigns to have other more honest authorities believe is better than the blood the Moslems would have drawn from such emasculated men - should he renounce the religious, or live in it as life should indeed and actually be lived; with the sex, the power, the position, and the prosperity being actively pursued.
As personal examples of how such hypocrisy of morality, always fuelled by religion, limits the emasculated in a world ruled by envious hypocrites for whom the sex should always be with the sweat - however unproductive the sweat may be - I have ordered ring-tones for my hand-set before that were quietly denied me, obviously because the tones were secular.
The impression being given?
I had to be Christian.
I have been denied access to sites today that are supposed to be "adult," and therefore made inaccessible to my thirty and more years of age.
The impression being given?
Oh, I have to be Christian.
I have had other such products denied me, by unappointed guardians and trustees.......
"whose fathers I would have dis-
dained
to set with the dogs of my flock"
had it not been the emasculation that, though being the hallmark of the Fairy Mane, would nevertheless have them deny him an adult life with words such as.......
"I cannot allow him to......."
And all for reasons no more than that envy of which I have written - shameless enough to be with a cold silence that makes me have to admire the Moslems; who don't bother with such cunning, but - in days of old - simply kill off the emasculated that insists he's not religious; with as much conscience as that with which they seal his anus, today.
"Adult" entertainment, in the truest sense of the word, is no more than entertainment for pubescent adults - emasculated men, and the average woman; who have been as exposed to sex and such as the adolescent for whom the thrill is as much of a pleasure as the act can be. For the minute you're smiled into being granted that right to "adult" entertainment, you're being called "a dolt" - no more, no less. A ten year old boy with the independence a man should have, if indeed adult, would buy such products with absolutely none of the hypocrites behind the "at long last" smiles of consent raising an eye-brow.
From the blatant frankness with which the older generation admits the constraints with which it limits the emasculated is due to no more than the envy the former has for the opportunities of the latter, when young; to the shameless hypocrisy with which those closer to my own generation still stubbornly cling to the "You no need am" tenets; it got to a stage in my life today where I had to decide that seven tee-shirts would soon be bought by me, with the words "I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN! IF YOU COME WITH THEIR WORDS, STAY AWAY FROM ME!!!" emblazoned on them.
Religion is no more than limitation. That is why it is the greatest excuse used by society's bullies to enforce the boundaries of emasculation. Supposed vices that are more of sight than sin, when condemned by the individual, though condoned by Scripture; have had the enforcement of their prohibition - even when capital - been with such a rigid fanaticism that the number of books removed from Christian scripture and into hiding, by its authorities in days of old, is almost as much as that which the naive Christian studies today as his Bible.
I forget whose words they are, but it has often been said: Religion is the opium of the people. And who are the people if not the masses thronging to mosques and churches to find a solution to problems reared by nothing other than emasculation. The poor, the weak, the down-trodden. The defenceless helpless that even the most fanatical religions know they don't dare behead, were they not emasculated - or, at the very least, without risking a full-scale war. Even should they that would have been beheaded be self-confessed homosexuals.
Little wonder the most religious people are always the educated, formal education being always accompanied by such limitations that it is almost a synonym for emasculation.
The hypocrisy behind religion - and the insults that the wise emasculated should shower on the ridiculously cunning Christians who strive to enforce it with their empty-headed preaching - was aptly condemned by even The Christ himself, who told such as they:
Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourself and you hindered those who were entering.
I believe in those words of The Christ to such an extent that I enjoin all those who read that which I write, and agree with my words, to shower no more than the deserved scorn of insult - verbal, or otherwise - on those hypocrites that call themselves his followers, who would that others do the following while walking withing the boundaries of emasculation; up to that extent that they do all to give the impression that I can ever do the following as a Christian again.
For (unlike that which the world's great religions are supposed to teach, even though that which they rarely ever do preach) righteousness is not the handmaiden of ascetism. Thus the impression (most often given by the hypocrisy of the senselessy empty-headed "folly set in many high places;" and the covetuousness of she whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters) that the words "Be holy, for I am holy," means an absolute absence of sin even while in the flesh; undermines the words of he whom they most often claim to set their hope on:
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
And what, indeed, is the truth?
If we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
A renunciation of the body, while yet in the body; is just as admirable as it is inadvisable. And both the libertine and the nymphomaniac can be as righteous as the austere monk; as long as he rapes not, and she walks not down highways stark naked.
If only the ignorant knew what little difference there is between the two. For touch is to the woman what sight is to the man (not when it comes to erections, true; but definitely when it comes to the moisture that invites the phallus) and a woman is as aroused during rape as often as the arousal humiliates her.
The nude on a highway humiliates a principled man just as easily, and just as much.
To put it in clearer terms: imagine the president of your country standing before a podium, before the electorate, before the public. And then place also the nude before him, and ask yourself this question, "Who was assaulted - the nude? Or the president, most especially if his reaction is with an erection."
The applause that would follow the erection would certainly be such as had the political officers I referred to above lose their appointments, and would thereby answer your question.
However, where the consent is on both sides, then.......
pick your partners, choose your stance
in rank obeisance to the dance.
Be they two or two hundred; yes, and indeed - and be the supposed immorality camouflaged by the respectability of polygamy, or bared by the righteousness of honesty.
Righteousness is that which both morality and religion should espouse, and not the limitations of an ascetism that may not necessarily be inbued with the virtues of doing good. "This I command you, to love one another;" and ignore the hypocrisy that would the love be always confined by the limitations of lust, when lost.
Therefore, the protection from the blood-let (be it physical, mental, or otherwise) that has always been a consequence of the insistence upon his rights by the homosexual renouncing the hypocrisy of both morality and religion, is one of the most important priorities of the Lords In Fairy Empires - the protection of the Fairies (the emasculated of such homosexuals) thereby flowering under the auspices of The Fairies Confraternity; and be the flowering imbued with the principles by which the Lords have to live as Manes (both being members who are to maintain that protection; with neither friend, nor foe) or devoid of absolutely all ties with either morality, or religion - regardless of how licentious the life may then be said to be. For the most important word still remains "consent;" and the right to live is the right of the living - regardless of the emasculation with which others see him as dead.
Ikoro Iyineleda.
August, 2010.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Peace And Homosexuality
Heterosexuality is always assumed in the human, due to the nature of the animal he is supposed to be. But if the homosexuality always prevalent in his most advanced civilizations is proof that its presence in the male curbs the characteristic aggression with which he conquers territories, and thereby proves his being worthy of the mating ritual to the female partner; then that presence is obviously also proof that the homosexual is going to be the alpha male - when all men are not only one, but equal; and the heterosexual barbarians, extinct.
The two major instincts that drive a human being are that for food and that for sex. And, life being survival of the fittest, the natural instincts of the female always propel her to mate with the fittest male - his fitness being oft' accompanied by the aggression of barbaric conquests - that the species may survive. Yet, if that urge for sex can be satisfied without recourse to heterosexuality; then, obviously, the need for aggression in the male will no longer be recognised by Nature. Hence, the greater number of men (as compared to women) that have absolutely no sexual interest in the opposite gender; with both their sexual interests and their need for companionship met by another man. For a woman, on her own part, has to be either extremely old or extremely ugly before homosexuality in her can be with such an absolute thoroughness - Nature having deemed it satisfactory that the proof of healthy genes required by it, and of her (and her consequent attractions to the male) be no more than a body. But once a man discovers those interests in, and has that need for companionship met by another man; the fitness required to excel as a rich and powerful (and thereby convince his partner that the products of the mating will be equally fit - be the conviction risen out of his position in an office, and his role as figure-head in the home; or out of his affluence as a rich and powerful business tycoon) the impetus to be thereby fit will no longer be such a compulsive urge; and he will thereby usually withdraw into the inner sensitivity that had the natural introversion of the homosexual initially earn him the tag, invert; and that then creates in his sexuality an absolute homosexual orientation. In the words of Webster Schott:
The homosexual has a vision of such things that drive him to extraordinary intensity....Either because in lonely childhood the homosexual became better at introspective tasks or because of innate abilities related to sexual deviation, some homosexuals appear to possess greater proficiency in histrionics and dance, manipulation of color and shape, and esthetic expression.
But the heterosexual brute?
His close affinity with the animals in the wild can be aptly observed in the third largest national park in Tanzania - Katavi; by its most exciting wildlife spectacle, provided by the hippopotami. Towards the end of the dry season, up to two hundred of them might flop together in any riverine pool of sufficient depth. As more and more of them gather in one place, so does male rivalry heat up - bloody territorial fights become an everyday occurence; with the vanquished male forced to lurk hapless in the open plains, until it gathers sufficient courage to mount another challenge.
Such spectacles are a characteristic part of the lives of almost all males, in each and every species of all animals that reproduce sexually. The male has to prove not only the presence in him of virility, but also the absence in him of sterility; by conquering a territory, while the female patiently waits for the conqueror to mount her. And the heterosexual barbarians I have often written of (who are they that have always been part of every reversion to the primitive, whenever there has been a significant peak in civilization) are no more than the most visible examples of the beast in Man, when that reversion has occured; the females that are liberated in all the most barbaric cultures, the less visible examples of that human throwback to the beast in the wild. From the gang-wars on the streets, to cult clashes on Nigerian campuses, and on down to those grandiose battles between tribes and nations; the roaring alpha male struts with violence his virility, as often as the female rutting after him bares her body to flaunt her fertility - both, instinctively enough to always be subconsciously, to prove how ripe they are for the mating ritual. And the sight of the two reveals most convincingly that which I state with these words : heterosexuality in the human is the most visible manifestation of the beast in him. Without the rampaging rutting that characterises the sowing of a man's wild oats; the consequent spread of his genes that, instinctively, is then his primary aim (and that will be accepted by the female, equally instinctively, should she be assured of her offspring thereby inheriting genes fit enough to have them survive life) the spread of those genes will be greatly reduced, and - in the homosexual - made absolutely unnecessary by the greater creativity that always accompanies his sexuality, and that therefore allows him to attain the immortality being sought with no recourse to the beast in man.
It is a well-known fact amongst both intellectuals and academicians that the greatest human civilizations have always witnessed a tremendous increase in homosexuality - most especially amongst the male; and accompanied by an uncharacteristic societal acceptance of the orientation that in some cases even becomes the approval of worship. I would not want to conclude by saying that heterosexuality - most especially in the man - must therefore be as condemned as homosexuality usually is, for the evolution of man to progress. But I do have to say that which is obvious enough from the blind rage with which the wild heterosexual barbarians strive to conquer both themselves and others, and always incited (just as in the wild) by the female that always tags after him with a body bared by the fashion of almost every culture, however conservative; fashion demanding sexual favours by almost every woman, even the most principled; fashion thereby betraying the heat that is a characteristic feature of her life.....I do have to say once more from that which I see of all that, this: the raging of the human male and the rutting of his female are the most visible representation of the beast in him. And the spectacles of their own raging and rutting will be as extinct as violence and war will thereby be, when heterosexuality in the male human is remembered as the dinosaurs are, who once ruled the earth.
I cannot speak for the female homosexual; for those women that rut do tend to rut more often when lesbian, than when heterosexual - lesbianism being no more than the bisexuality of a woman in heat. Yet the struggle for the rights of marriage between couples of the male homosexual having always been more passionate than any that was ever waged by the female seems to suggest that male homosexuals do form stable relationships with each other much more than do lesbians. And I do know that the men that have won through life with absolutely no recourse to the violence characterising that of the animal in the wild have most often been homosexual. From Plato and Socrates, who had absolutely nothing to do with that violence; to Michelangelo Buonarroti, whose phenomenal rise above its evil brought him a spirituality others see only in religion; the placid peace of homosexuality that characterised their nature (as opposed to the battles with which the barbarian has to abide by the eternal rule of the woman: no finance, no romance) has had the vast majority of them inherit naturally the extremely high refinement in character that has the coarse heterosexual mock homosexuals with words such as queen, and pansy.
Alexander the Great (a man that inherited his title by becoming the greatest conqueror that ever strode down a battle-field) was not only homosexual, but had that sensitivity in him that always attracts derogatory titles from brutes and barbarians; despite the hardened character that has to be that of a man whose conquests are crowned by the gory glory of war. Unlike the vulgar male - who is no more than a bisexual on a rampage, even when supposedly homosexual; Alexander the Great had so little to do with the rutting that always accompanies war, when in the warrior, when in the wild; that he had not one single child by the time he died at the mere age of thirty years. Despite the rigidity with which ruggedness is encouraged in the warrior he was, despite the role his father should have played as an example of such ruggedness, despite the greatness of his that overshadows that of any other human being ever crowned by the conquests of war; Alexander the Great possessed a personality that would obviously have been exceedingly refined by one of the most expansive examples of education in his day. Taught by one of the most brilliant sages of all time, Aristotle; he learnt ethics, philosophy, political science, botany, anatomy, history, and literature with such an aesthetic sensitivity that he always had under his pillow a unique copy of Homer's Iliad (made for him with special notes by Aristotle) as opposed to the dagger also kept under the pillow; which proved his being as still that of a warrior, regardless of how little rugged.
Thus it is with every man that indeed is homosexual, and not merely a bisexual sowing wild oats. As often as the educated man has had homosexuality accompany both the reservation and the refinement of his heritage, however much of an extrovert he may be; the coarse illiterate has had its males roar their virility with violence, however murderous; and its females flaunt their fertility with prurience, however depraved. And between the one and the other is clearly obvious wherein the barbarian in man lies; be he male, or female. Hence the closer relationship men have with women (however well-clad by the camouflage of respectability borne by mothering) when involved in the usually depraved fertility rites of primitive tribes. Hence the closer relationship women have with fathers (however emasculated by the peace often accompanying education) when involved in the violence and the fraud that accompanies the pursuit of power and affluence. Hence the delicacy of refinement that is rarely ever seen in the heterosexual man, and in the bisexual the lesbian woman always turns out to be. This refinement will have peace rise as a permanent part of humanity, only when his sexuality has conquered heterosexuality enough for violence to be in vain.
Ikoro Iyineleda.
The two major instincts that drive a human being are that for food and that for sex. And, life being survival of the fittest, the natural instincts of the female always propel her to mate with the fittest male - his fitness being oft' accompanied by the aggression of barbaric conquests - that the species may survive. Yet, if that urge for sex can be satisfied without recourse to heterosexuality; then, obviously, the need for aggression in the male will no longer be recognised by Nature. Hence, the greater number of men (as compared to women) that have absolutely no sexual interest in the opposite gender; with both their sexual interests and their need for companionship met by another man. For a woman, on her own part, has to be either extremely old or extremely ugly before homosexuality in her can be with such an absolute thoroughness - Nature having deemed it satisfactory that the proof of healthy genes required by it, and of her (and her consequent attractions to the male) be no more than a body. But once a man discovers those interests in, and has that need for companionship met by another man; the fitness required to excel as a rich and powerful (and thereby convince his partner that the products of the mating will be equally fit - be the conviction risen out of his position in an office, and his role as figure-head in the home; or out of his affluence as a rich and powerful business tycoon) the impetus to be thereby fit will no longer be such a compulsive urge; and he will thereby usually withdraw into the inner sensitivity that had the natural introversion of the homosexual initially earn him the tag, invert; and that then creates in his sexuality an absolute homosexual orientation. In the words of Webster Schott:
The homosexual has a vision of such things that drive him to extraordinary intensity....Either because in lonely childhood the homosexual became better at introspective tasks or because of innate abilities related to sexual deviation, some homosexuals appear to possess greater proficiency in histrionics and dance, manipulation of color and shape, and esthetic expression.
But the heterosexual brute?
His close affinity with the animals in the wild can be aptly observed in the third largest national park in Tanzania - Katavi; by its most exciting wildlife spectacle, provided by the hippopotami. Towards the end of the dry season, up to two hundred of them might flop together in any riverine pool of sufficient depth. As more and more of them gather in one place, so does male rivalry heat up - bloody territorial fights become an everyday occurence; with the vanquished male forced to lurk hapless in the open plains, until it gathers sufficient courage to mount another challenge.
Such spectacles are a characteristic part of the lives of almost all males, in each and every species of all animals that reproduce sexually. The male has to prove not only the presence in him of virility, but also the absence in him of sterility; by conquering a territory, while the female patiently waits for the conqueror to mount her. And the heterosexual barbarians I have often written of (who are they that have always been part of every reversion to the primitive, whenever there has been a significant peak in civilization) are no more than the most visible examples of the beast in Man, when that reversion has occured; the females that are liberated in all the most barbaric cultures, the less visible examples of that human throwback to the beast in the wild. From the gang-wars on the streets, to cult clashes on Nigerian campuses, and on down to those grandiose battles between tribes and nations; the roaring alpha male struts with violence his virility, as often as the female rutting after him bares her body to flaunt her fertility - both, instinctively enough to always be subconsciously, to prove how ripe they are for the mating ritual. And the sight of the two reveals most convincingly that which I state with these words : heterosexuality in the human is the most visible manifestation of the beast in him. Without the rampaging rutting that characterises the sowing of a man's wild oats; the consequent spread of his genes that, instinctively, is then his primary aim (and that will be accepted by the female, equally instinctively, should she be assured of her offspring thereby inheriting genes fit enough to have them survive life) the spread of those genes will be greatly reduced, and - in the homosexual - made absolutely unnecessary by the greater creativity that always accompanies his sexuality, and that therefore allows him to attain the immortality being sought with no recourse to the beast in man.
It is a well-known fact amongst both intellectuals and academicians that the greatest human civilizations have always witnessed a tremendous increase in homosexuality - most especially amongst the male; and accompanied by an uncharacteristic societal acceptance of the orientation that in some cases even becomes the approval of worship. I would not want to conclude by saying that heterosexuality - most especially in the man - must therefore be as condemned as homosexuality usually is, for the evolution of man to progress. But I do have to say that which is obvious enough from the blind rage with which the wild heterosexual barbarians strive to conquer both themselves and others, and always incited (just as in the wild) by the female that always tags after him with a body bared by the fashion of almost every culture, however conservative; fashion demanding sexual favours by almost every woman, even the most principled; fashion thereby betraying the heat that is a characteristic feature of her life.....I do have to say once more from that which I see of all that, this: the raging of the human male and the rutting of his female are the most visible representation of the beast in him. And the spectacles of their own raging and rutting will be as extinct as violence and war will thereby be, when heterosexuality in the male human is remembered as the dinosaurs are, who once ruled the earth.
I cannot speak for the female homosexual; for those women that rut do tend to rut more often when lesbian, than when heterosexual - lesbianism being no more than the bisexuality of a woman in heat. Yet the struggle for the rights of marriage between couples of the male homosexual having always been more passionate than any that was ever waged by the female seems to suggest that male homosexuals do form stable relationships with each other much more than do lesbians. And I do know that the men that have won through life with absolutely no recourse to the violence characterising that of the animal in the wild have most often been homosexual. From Plato and Socrates, who had absolutely nothing to do with that violence; to Michelangelo Buonarroti, whose phenomenal rise above its evil brought him a spirituality others see only in religion; the placid peace of homosexuality that characterised their nature (as opposed to the battles with which the barbarian has to abide by the eternal rule of the woman: no finance, no romance) has had the vast majority of them inherit naturally the extremely high refinement in character that has the coarse heterosexual mock homosexuals with words such as queen, and pansy.
Alexander the Great (a man that inherited his title by becoming the greatest conqueror that ever strode down a battle-field) was not only homosexual, but had that sensitivity in him that always attracts derogatory titles from brutes and barbarians; despite the hardened character that has to be that of a man whose conquests are crowned by the gory glory of war. Unlike the vulgar male - who is no more than a bisexual on a rampage, even when supposedly homosexual; Alexander the Great had so little to do with the rutting that always accompanies war, when in the warrior, when in the wild; that he had not one single child by the time he died at the mere age of thirty years. Despite the rigidity with which ruggedness is encouraged in the warrior he was, despite the role his father should have played as an example of such ruggedness, despite the greatness of his that overshadows that of any other human being ever crowned by the conquests of war; Alexander the Great possessed a personality that would obviously have been exceedingly refined by one of the most expansive examples of education in his day. Taught by one of the most brilliant sages of all time, Aristotle; he learnt ethics, philosophy, political science, botany, anatomy, history, and literature with such an aesthetic sensitivity that he always had under his pillow a unique copy of Homer's Iliad (made for him with special notes by Aristotle) as opposed to the dagger also kept under the pillow; which proved his being as still that of a warrior, regardless of how little rugged.
Thus it is with every man that indeed is homosexual, and not merely a bisexual sowing wild oats. As often as the educated man has had homosexuality accompany both the reservation and the refinement of his heritage, however much of an extrovert he may be; the coarse illiterate has had its males roar their virility with violence, however murderous; and its females flaunt their fertility with prurience, however depraved. And between the one and the other is clearly obvious wherein the barbarian in man lies; be he male, or female. Hence the closer relationship men have with women (however well-clad by the camouflage of respectability borne by mothering) when involved in the usually depraved fertility rites of primitive tribes. Hence the closer relationship women have with fathers (however emasculated by the peace often accompanying education) when involved in the violence and the fraud that accompanies the pursuit of power and affluence. Hence the delicacy of refinement that is rarely ever seen in the heterosexual man, and in the bisexual the lesbian woman always turns out to be. This refinement will have peace rise as a permanent part of humanity, only when his sexuality has conquered heterosexuality enough for violence to be in vain.
Ikoro Iyineleda.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Pearls in the paws of pigs proves its purity even more as their pornography palls in comparison to the power of its purity. Hence the eternal truth in the words below - known by every man and woman with the exposure, such that both will use the dildo; be the former supposed to be an alpha male heterosexual, or the latter a lesbian laying claim to homosexuality that cannot be bisexual....
the phallus it is that gives the pleasure
The phallus it is that gives the pleasure. Everything else is either imitation, or labour.
Ikoro Iyineleda
August, 2010.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
"You No Need Am" And A Few Other Issues
The hypocrisy in the "You no need am" cunning (ever striving to keep men locked up in workrooms as dull Jacks busy wasting away) is that which should be condemned as fervently by the general society as I will not only condemn it with my own word, but as fervently as the Lords In Fairy Empires will condemn it with the care of emasculated homosexuals with which it will oppose it - by placing under protection the emasculation that usually accompanies homosexuality; and by empowering, when the homosexual would that he be. For how often emasculation often ends up having men viciously taken advantage of, by a world they know absolutely nothing of, often keeps me wrinkling my nostrils in disdain at the stench of the hypocrisy permeating those other worlds.
As a typical example, let us take a brief glimpse at the male adolescent phenomenon known as wet dreams.
Wet dreams, known in scientific circles as a common occurence amongst adolescent boys - and natural, at that - would be more appropriately known as wet sleep, had they not been another obvious proof of the number of times men are raped being just as often as that of women (if not more) and as equally often when they're young and pretty adolescents as women are during their own youth, before age takes away that which attracts the men to them. This fact is always ignored by the more powerful, and always open-eyed; and just as often unknown by the naive ignorant. For the naive culture that drives most societies usually believes women - however old, or capable - should be protected more conscientiously than any male child that has learnt how to talk. Yet, if it but knew how often such boys are sexually abused, even when supposedly under the protection of their parents (and, by those parents, as often as girls are - if not more) it would realise how the subtle cunning of female sexism and female chauvinism rules society much more than does the much more often maligned male version.
And a typical example of how such hypocrisy is covered up (by the heterosexual male-dominated society ignoring the needs of men, most especially when emasculated, regardless of how young; while preaching the zeal with which the women should be taken care of, regardless of how capable, regardless of how old) can be seen in the adolescent phenomenon often referred to by human behavioural scientists as "the wet dream."
The raging heterosexual males ruling the society do not want to know anything about the needs of men, unless the man is their personal friend. Men being supposed to take care of themselves because they are men, is that which they push down the throats of those other men - regardless of how young, weak, or needy the latter might be. And the women openly support such a cruel concept, despised (during those few occasions when a brave honest can speak the truth) as being no more than a symptom of male chauvinism; but to the brave honest that can see, that of female chauvinism - with the cunning with which they condone it, and then just as openly betray with their activities (be it public, or private) the sexism with which they protect the girl-child in particular (I don't believe even the very word "boy-child" has ever been mentioned in any but that which I write, before) and empower the female gender in particular.
And thereby, the wet dream.
I call wet dreams rape. Others, when just as aware, would call it child abuse. For if it was just a mere case of the libido having built up into a climax (as the human behavioural scientists would like to have us all believe) then it should be labelled with the term, wet sleep. Yet wet dreams they're called; not because they are not accompanied by sleep, but because the subconscious will always remember the lack of conscience with which the poor boy was taken advantage of - even when it stays with him only as a dream, upon awakening.
With that which I have been through in my own life, there are those amongst such boys that should have what they experience described as "greasy sleep" - if one puts into consideration the lubrication of their rectums that often accompanies their awakening from such sleep. Their days, after having thus woken up, would then be spent in workrooms; their lives lived as dull Jacks, and the disenchantment with which they live those lives encouraged (either by hypocrites, or by Jacks equally dull) into falling for the "You no need am" myth that would have them believe all work even that dull needs absolutely none of that play.
Girls rarely ever have that sort of problem, except in lower class societies. In the middle and the upper class, they are protected by a sexism completely ignored by men in general, and obviously encouraged by women in particular (though with extreme subtility) and with such fervid fanaticism that the privacy they're given, which boys rarely ever have, eventually has their own childhood and youth very often spent delving into sexual experiments with and amidst themselves. While the boys, when they have not fallen for the "You no need am" hypocrisy, are thrown out of the house to fight and to play football; when they have had the "You no need am" hypocrisy driven down their throats, are locked up in classrooms, workrooms, and supposed offices to simply waste away the energy that the girls spend in that referred to above, in the supposed work they are often deceived when older into believing is the heritage of the man.
Primitive tribes knew much more (but were just as cruel as the prison wardens of today that lock up women in general, and emasculated men in particular; right from the days of their childhood, with the "You no need am" hypocrisy). They envied the women's pleasure then just as much as the raging barbarians envy homosexual pleasure today. They removed the clitoris just as often as certain countries seal the anus today. And whichever work the women did was as devoid of societally approved power as is the labour thrust upon the shoulders of emasculated men of today.
However, I digress.
How utterly shameless this version of sexism is can be seen in the words of a certain woman that most probably parts her thighs for any man with money and power, and that sleeps around with each and every woman she's sure is with a lesbian bent; yet, that could despite then, even then, open her mouth to say that a certain friend of mine was "such a good boy," but is no longer good enough to recieve such accolades from her because he has threatened to deal with any girl he sees practising lesbianism.
The reason behind such hypocrisy having been always condoned, even by men that are not exactly raging barbarians, is that which I am yet to understand. And I always ask myself whether a Samson, in any generation, will always fall for the cunning of women. However, I am glad that the hypocrisy is getting to be not exactly as condoned as it used to be; by a little more of those men that are not exactly heterosexual barbarians - even though, and indeed, heterosexual. And it may even begin to become condemned soon enough, and up to that extent where public opinion will no longer have it be an open secret that even supposed "Sweet Mothers" are most often no more than shameless sluts.
Amongst the lower class illiterates of today, it continues to be said by the men: Iranu ni obinrin. Amongst the middle and the upper class, there are men that have begun to say they don't want to be "as irresponsible as a woman." Yet the women continue striving to give all others the impression that only men pant after sex as irresponsibly as dogs in heat; and therefore should either be castrated, or imprisoned in Zulu Sofola's "Sweet Trap."
An intelligent human behavioural scientist will tell you, on the other hand, that the hypocrisy with which the women pant after sex on their own part can be seen in how easily they take to lesbianism. Homosexuality is an acquired taste, and you will take to it as easily as the average woman does in this generation if - and only if - it has always been a part of your sexuality.
Should the lesbian bent in women begin to become as condemned (and I would ignore their distress should the condemnation come hand-in-hand with persecution) as the homosexual bent in men was ever condemned by the most homophobic cultures; or should the homosexual bent in men begin to become as condoned (and I would celebrate the honour should the condoning come hand-in-hand with approval) as it always has been in the most highly evolved and least barbaric human civilizations - yet with no recourse, should the latter be the case, to the bias with which one form is condoned while the other is condemned in those homophobic societies - then the Lords In Fairy Empires would have achieved one of its greatest goals, and I will begin to feel grateful to my God for having contributed more to the evolution of humanity than sitting down in an office to deserve a salary. For the bias between how one form of sexual orientation is condoned (and even visibly encouraged, in certain societies) while the other is invariably condemned, and almost just as often persecuted (up to that extent where even mothers can admit on television to indulging in the one; while a man that has the other as his sexual orientation dares not let others know - or they may have his anus sealed with glue, in certain countries; and that is the least that they do) this bias has always left a bitter taste in my mouth.
"I sucked my mother's bosom," were the words with which a woman once used on the radio, to justify the lesbian bent in her.
I'm yet to see the human behavioural scientist that will tell us all that breastfeeding is incest. Yet there are women decent enough, who know enough, to say that they will not breastfeed their child - with words as frank, even though still secretive, as the "My breasts are for my husband" credited to a thirty-five year old French mother of twins, living in Britain; as opposed to the "breast is best" hypothesis that the naive and the hypocrite in the medical profession strive to drive down our throats. Doctors with neither naivete nor hypocrisy in them speak as does Kevin Harrington (an obstetrician with a private practice at the Portland Hospital, in central London):
"....for some women, their breasts are an important part of their sexuality and they don't want them used to provide milk." (Emphasis, mine).
I wouldn't say, "for some women." But I do agree with the words with which he justifies his prescription of cabergoline, an anti-lactation drug; even though he sought to be as secretive with those words as the mother of twins referred to above.
Women that do not have such a conscience, on the other hand, never let their husbands into the act. Breastfeeding is labour, to the husband; and she's tired as often during breastfeeding as the husband then has to masturbate. But she never has to worry. For he believes she was indeed working, and will never believe the number of orgasms that could have accompanied the "labour."
"After I have grown old, and my husband is old," Sarah laughed to herself, when she was told she would bear a son in her old age. "Shall I have pleasure?" (Emphasis, mine).
And I wonder why the average Christian (even when indeed Christian, even when thus diligent enough to notice those words) is never perceptive enough to realise she could not have been referring to the pleasures of the marital bed - which should be a foregone conclusion the minute she has a husband. Women have always known enough about this characteristic naivete of the male concerning their sexuality (even when they know him to be Christian, even when they know him to be The LORD) enough to either giggle amidst themselves, or laugh at him; most of the time when they do giggle (as girls) or laugh (as women). Laughter and giggling is not a usual trait of theirs only when they're indeed either as hardworking as a man is supposed to be, or as adventurous as he is wont to be - even when all he does is club and party.
I laugh at the naivete of the average man, and at the "Sweet Mother" myth that always has them believe in the nobility of Woman. Yet, even the Jesus whose mother is an image of that myth never fell for its lie. He renounced the Virgin Mary in public, before each and every one of his followers.
"And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers!' " (Emphasis, mine).
If only all men knew why women always want to give birth to so many children, despite the labour childbirth has always been associated with - labour that is known to often bring about even death. And why their firsthand knowledge of their sexuality has always had them be the ones that most often support female circumcision, most especially amidst the primitive and the illiterate; just as often as men it is that most often persecute male homosexuality, and for no more than the same reasons. A glued anus is to the homosexual what circumcision is to the woman. And the heterosexual bullies I prefer to label with the tag "barbarians" have realised this accurately enough to know exactly how to circumcise homosexuals, in certain countries, in this day and age.
Personally, and to be fair, I believe that if sex was meant for none other but reproduction, then there's no need for the pleasure to be a part of coitus for any but the male - upon whose shoulders is the labour involved, and who should therefore be encouraged by nature to shoulder the burden. And the truth in that statement can be seen in how only the human female can lay claim to that pleasure, amongst all female animals that reproduce sexually. But once pleasure has been brought in, then - I'm sorry, girls - but I'm with the women that say they will not breastfeed. The animal in the wild knows absolutely nothing about nipple erections, clitoral stimulation, and female orgasm.
I cannot speak for domestic animals, considering the extent to which depravity has sunk in this generation.
However, the plethora of web-sites (both academic and pornographic) that brought such information to this generation, has had us graduate from those days when we used to wonder why women found it so difficult to attain orgasm, to these days when we wonder whether they ever think of anything else but sex - even while breastfeeding. Thus I believe every married woman in this century should exclude all else apart from her husband from the pleasures of her bosom. And every culture that has explored sexuality enough to have the women lay claim to the pleasure in sex (from the Mangaians of Polynesia, during the earlier years of the last century; to the decent amongst those exposed enough in the United Kingdom) has always agreed with my opinion.
And I'm even more in favour of the men that justify the virtue that homosexuality is, when in men. Nature did mean sex for no more than reproduction, and the pleasure during the act was meant only for men - to encourage them into pursuing the performance that the pleasure actually is, for them. However, if women now have the privilege of that pleasure - and even amidst themselves - then why should I be no more than a stud labouring for them, even while supposedly enjoying that pleasure? Most especially when the relationship will remain based on that most important female principle - no finance, no romance. For even amidst women that lay claim to no other sexual orientation but heterosexuality, how many are faithful enough to deserve the fruits of such labour?
According to the wisest man that ever lived (and he had a mother, too) - none. Read the Scriptures.
I will not mention a name, for I respect the man (not his mother) that I am about to speak of, who is one of the most famous and the most hardworking medical doctors in the United States. Honouring his own mother (a single mother) was that which he often did in his books. However, if he realised how difficult chastity is in a poor single mother (not only concerning the needs of her children, which would require money; but also concerning the needs of her own body) he would remember Solomon's words; before striving through his books to give the "You no need am" impression which she always gave him, to me....
"....but a woman among all these I have not found."
How men always suffer more from that "You no need am" cunning is proven by how it is most often men that thereby waste away until "the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them.' " The girls would always have enough privacy to fall back on their lesbianism, even back in those days before my words proved how prevalent it is amidst them - especially since it is usually condoned by the society in general. The boys would always be thrown out (however young, weak, or needy) into the workrooms and the offices wherein they can safely waste away all that youthful exuberance.
A war on both the hypocrisy and the wickedness of the "You no need am" culture is one of that which L.I.F.E. wages; not only with its membership drive including an open invitation to all emasculated men, as long as they justify the virtue that is homosexuality; but also with a public awareness campaign that does, and will prove, how the most pitiful victims of the shameful culture are the men; and not the women that would conquer it by being pampered by a husband, or (when not that conservative) by giggling in the bedrooms, the workrooms, and the offices wherein they're granted all the privacy needed to indulge by men that do not know, or by men that overlook the gratification they're obviously thereby obtaining - men who are conned into both the granting of that privacy and the condoning of that bent by the women that always knew girls do it as much, if not more; even before I began to write on it.
Ikoro Iyineleda
July, 2010.
As a typical example, let us take a brief glimpse at the male adolescent phenomenon known as wet dreams.
Wet dreams, known in scientific circles as a common occurence amongst adolescent boys - and natural, at that - would be more appropriately known as wet sleep, had they not been another obvious proof of the number of times men are raped being just as often as that of women (if not more) and as equally often when they're young and pretty adolescents as women are during their own youth, before age takes away that which attracts the men to them. This fact is always ignored by the more powerful, and always open-eyed; and just as often unknown by the naive ignorant. For the naive culture that drives most societies usually believes women - however old, or capable - should be protected more conscientiously than any male child that has learnt how to talk. Yet, if it but knew how often such boys are sexually abused, even when supposedly under the protection of their parents (and, by those parents, as often as girls are - if not more) it would realise how the subtle cunning of female sexism and female chauvinism rules society much more than does the much more often maligned male version.
And a typical example of how such hypocrisy is covered up (by the heterosexual male-dominated society ignoring the needs of men, most especially when emasculated, regardless of how young; while preaching the zeal with which the women should be taken care of, regardless of how capable, regardless of how old) can be seen in the adolescent phenomenon often referred to by human behavioural scientists as "the wet dream."
The raging heterosexual males ruling the society do not want to know anything about the needs of men, unless the man is their personal friend. Men being supposed to take care of themselves because they are men, is that which they push down the throats of those other men - regardless of how young, weak, or needy the latter might be. And the women openly support such a cruel concept, despised (during those few occasions when a brave honest can speak the truth) as being no more than a symptom of male chauvinism; but to the brave honest that can see, that of female chauvinism - with the cunning with which they condone it, and then just as openly betray with their activities (be it public, or private) the sexism with which they protect the girl-child in particular (I don't believe even the very word "boy-child" has ever been mentioned in any but that which I write, before) and empower the female gender in particular.
And thereby, the wet dream.
I call wet dreams rape. Others, when just as aware, would call it child abuse. For if it was just a mere case of the libido having built up into a climax (as the human behavioural scientists would like to have us all believe) then it should be labelled with the term, wet sleep. Yet wet dreams they're called; not because they are not accompanied by sleep, but because the subconscious will always remember the lack of conscience with which the poor boy was taken advantage of - even when it stays with him only as a dream, upon awakening.
With that which I have been through in my own life, there are those amongst such boys that should have what they experience described as "greasy sleep" - if one puts into consideration the lubrication of their rectums that often accompanies their awakening from such sleep. Their days, after having thus woken up, would then be spent in workrooms; their lives lived as dull Jacks, and the disenchantment with which they live those lives encouraged (either by hypocrites, or by Jacks equally dull) into falling for the "You no need am" myth that would have them believe all work even that dull needs absolutely none of that play.
Girls rarely ever have that sort of problem, except in lower class societies. In the middle and the upper class, they are protected by a sexism completely ignored by men in general, and obviously encouraged by women in particular (though with extreme subtility) and with such fervid fanaticism that the privacy they're given, which boys rarely ever have, eventually has their own childhood and youth very often spent delving into sexual experiments with and amidst themselves. While the boys, when they have not fallen for the "You no need am" hypocrisy, are thrown out of the house to fight and to play football; when they have had the "You no need am" hypocrisy driven down their throats, are locked up in classrooms, workrooms, and supposed offices to simply waste away the energy that the girls spend in that referred to above, in the supposed work they are often deceived when older into believing is the heritage of the man.
Primitive tribes knew much more (but were just as cruel as the prison wardens of today that lock up women in general, and emasculated men in particular; right from the days of their childhood, with the "You no need am" hypocrisy). They envied the women's pleasure then just as much as the raging barbarians envy homosexual pleasure today. They removed the clitoris just as often as certain countries seal the anus today. And whichever work the women did was as devoid of societally approved power as is the labour thrust upon the shoulders of emasculated men of today.
However, I digress.
How utterly shameless this version of sexism is can be seen in the words of a certain woman that most probably parts her thighs for any man with money and power, and that sleeps around with each and every woman she's sure is with a lesbian bent; yet, that could despite then, even then, open her mouth to say that a certain friend of mine was "such a good boy," but is no longer good enough to recieve such accolades from her because he has threatened to deal with any girl he sees practising lesbianism.
The reason behind such hypocrisy having been always condoned, even by men that are not exactly raging barbarians, is that which I am yet to understand. And I always ask myself whether a Samson, in any generation, will always fall for the cunning of women. However, I am glad that the hypocrisy is getting to be not exactly as condoned as it used to be; by a little more of those men that are not exactly heterosexual barbarians - even though, and indeed, heterosexual. And it may even begin to become condemned soon enough, and up to that extent where public opinion will no longer have it be an open secret that even supposed "Sweet Mothers" are most often no more than shameless sluts.
Amongst the lower class illiterates of today, it continues to be said by the men: Iranu ni obinrin. Amongst the middle and the upper class, there are men that have begun to say they don't want to be "as irresponsible as a woman." Yet the women continue striving to give all others the impression that only men pant after sex as irresponsibly as dogs in heat; and therefore should either be castrated, or imprisoned in Zulu Sofola's "Sweet Trap."
An intelligent human behavioural scientist will tell you, on the other hand, that the hypocrisy with which the women pant after sex on their own part can be seen in how easily they take to lesbianism. Homosexuality is an acquired taste, and you will take to it as easily as the average woman does in this generation if - and only if - it has always been a part of your sexuality.
Should the lesbian bent in women begin to become as condemned (and I would ignore their distress should the condemnation come hand-in-hand with persecution) as the homosexual bent in men was ever condemned by the most homophobic cultures; or should the homosexual bent in men begin to become as condoned (and I would celebrate the honour should the condoning come hand-in-hand with approval) as it always has been in the most highly evolved and least barbaric human civilizations - yet with no recourse, should the latter be the case, to the bias with which one form is condoned while the other is condemned in those homophobic societies - then the Lords In Fairy Empires would have achieved one of its greatest goals, and I will begin to feel grateful to my God for having contributed more to the evolution of humanity than sitting down in an office to deserve a salary. For the bias between how one form of sexual orientation is condoned (and even visibly encouraged, in certain societies) while the other is invariably condemned, and almost just as often persecuted (up to that extent where even mothers can admit on television to indulging in the one; while a man that has the other as his sexual orientation dares not let others know - or they may have his anus sealed with glue, in certain countries; and that is the least that they do) this bias has always left a bitter taste in my mouth.
"I sucked my mother's bosom," were the words with which a woman once used on the radio, to justify the lesbian bent in her.
I'm yet to see the human behavioural scientist that will tell us all that breastfeeding is incest. Yet there are women decent enough, who know enough, to say that they will not breastfeed their child - with words as frank, even though still secretive, as the "My breasts are for my husband" credited to a thirty-five year old French mother of twins, living in Britain; as opposed to the "breast is best" hypothesis that the naive and the hypocrite in the medical profession strive to drive down our throats. Doctors with neither naivete nor hypocrisy in them speak as does Kevin Harrington (an obstetrician with a private practice at the Portland Hospital, in central London):
"....for some women, their breasts are an important part of their sexuality and they don't want them used to provide milk." (Emphasis, mine).
I wouldn't say, "for some women." But I do agree with the words with which he justifies his prescription of cabergoline, an anti-lactation drug; even though he sought to be as secretive with those words as the mother of twins referred to above.
Women that do not have such a conscience, on the other hand, never let their husbands into the act. Breastfeeding is labour, to the husband; and she's tired as often during breastfeeding as the husband then has to masturbate. But she never has to worry. For he believes she was indeed working, and will never believe the number of orgasms that could have accompanied the "labour."
"After I have grown old, and my husband is old," Sarah laughed to herself, when she was told she would bear a son in her old age. "Shall I have pleasure?" (Emphasis, mine).
And I wonder why the average Christian (even when indeed Christian, even when thus diligent enough to notice those words) is never perceptive enough to realise she could not have been referring to the pleasures of the marital bed - which should be a foregone conclusion the minute she has a husband. Women have always known enough about this characteristic naivete of the male concerning their sexuality (even when they know him to be Christian, even when they know him to be The LORD) enough to either giggle amidst themselves, or laugh at him; most of the time when they do giggle (as girls) or laugh (as women). Laughter and giggling is not a usual trait of theirs only when they're indeed either as hardworking as a man is supposed to be, or as adventurous as he is wont to be - even when all he does is club and party.
I laugh at the naivete of the average man, and at the "Sweet Mother" myth that always has them believe in the nobility of Woman. Yet, even the Jesus whose mother is an image of that myth never fell for its lie. He renounced the Virgin Mary in public, before each and every one of his followers.
"And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers!' " (Emphasis, mine).
If only all men knew why women always want to give birth to so many children, despite the labour childbirth has always been associated with - labour that is known to often bring about even death. And why their firsthand knowledge of their sexuality has always had them be the ones that most often support female circumcision, most especially amidst the primitive and the illiterate; just as often as men it is that most often persecute male homosexuality, and for no more than the same reasons. A glued anus is to the homosexual what circumcision is to the woman. And the heterosexual bullies I prefer to label with the tag "barbarians" have realised this accurately enough to know exactly how to circumcise homosexuals, in certain countries, in this day and age.
Personally, and to be fair, I believe that if sex was meant for none other but reproduction, then there's no need for the pleasure to be a part of coitus for any but the male - upon whose shoulders is the labour involved, and who should therefore be encouraged by nature to shoulder the burden. And the truth in that statement can be seen in how only the human female can lay claim to that pleasure, amongst all female animals that reproduce sexually. But once pleasure has been brought in, then - I'm sorry, girls - but I'm with the women that say they will not breastfeed. The animal in the wild knows absolutely nothing about nipple erections, clitoral stimulation, and female orgasm.
I cannot speak for domestic animals, considering the extent to which depravity has sunk in this generation.
However, the plethora of web-sites (both academic and pornographic) that brought such information to this generation, has had us graduate from those days when we used to wonder why women found it so difficult to attain orgasm, to these days when we wonder whether they ever think of anything else but sex - even while breastfeeding. Thus I believe every married woman in this century should exclude all else apart from her husband from the pleasures of her bosom. And every culture that has explored sexuality enough to have the women lay claim to the pleasure in sex (from the Mangaians of Polynesia, during the earlier years of the last century; to the decent amongst those exposed enough in the United Kingdom) has always agreed with my opinion.
And I'm even more in favour of the men that justify the virtue that homosexuality is, when in men. Nature did mean sex for no more than reproduction, and the pleasure during the act was meant only for men - to encourage them into pursuing the performance that the pleasure actually is, for them. However, if women now have the privilege of that pleasure - and even amidst themselves - then why should I be no more than a stud labouring for them, even while supposedly enjoying that pleasure? Most especially when the relationship will remain based on that most important female principle - no finance, no romance. For even amidst women that lay claim to no other sexual orientation but heterosexuality, how many are faithful enough to deserve the fruits of such labour?
According to the wisest man that ever lived (and he had a mother, too) - none. Read the Scriptures.
I will not mention a name, for I respect the man (not his mother) that I am about to speak of, who is one of the most famous and the most hardworking medical doctors in the United States. Honouring his own mother (a single mother) was that which he often did in his books. However, if he realised how difficult chastity is in a poor single mother (not only concerning the needs of her children, which would require money; but also concerning the needs of her own body) he would remember Solomon's words; before striving through his books to give the "You no need am" impression which she always gave him, to me....
"....but a woman among all these I have not found."
How men always suffer more from that "You no need am" cunning is proven by how it is most often men that thereby waste away until "the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them.' " The girls would always have enough privacy to fall back on their lesbianism, even back in those days before my words proved how prevalent it is amidst them - especially since it is usually condoned by the society in general. The boys would always be thrown out (however young, weak, or needy) into the workrooms and the offices wherein they can safely waste away all that youthful exuberance.
A war on both the hypocrisy and the wickedness of the "You no need am" culture is one of that which L.I.F.E. wages; not only with its membership drive including an open invitation to all emasculated men, as long as they justify the virtue that is homosexuality; but also with a public awareness campaign that does, and will prove, how the most pitiful victims of the shameful culture are the men; and not the women that would conquer it by being pampered by a husband, or (when not that conservative) by giggling in the bedrooms, the workrooms, and the offices wherein they're granted all the privacy needed to indulge by men that do not know, or by men that overlook the gratification they're obviously thereby obtaining - men who are conned into both the granting of that privacy and the condoning of that bent by the women that always knew girls do it as much, if not more; even before I began to write on it.
Ikoro Iyineleda
July, 2010.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Between The Cunning Of Women And The Hypocrisy Of Men
I have come to realise how often I step out of that house wherein I reside, all dressed up; and then appear - to most others apart from those who know me well enough to realise the dire financial straits I am often in - I usually appear to such as they as being a powerful man, even if not hardworking enough to be rich.
I climbed into a public transport bus a week or so ago; and the ease with which at least two of the women that were to share the ride with me instantly took the opportunity to reveal parts of their bodies usually well-clad in public, made me realise how apt my assessment is of a woman's reaction to money and power - when in a man; as the women obviously thought was in me, and as it usually is in a man. However, the air - some time into the ride home in that bus (not only disappointed, but disgruntled) - with which the women then covered up those parts of their bodies that they had initially thought me worthy enough to leave unclad in my presence (covered up, obviously, after they had realised that I was most probably one of those that the more lousy in our generation would call "losers;" and who are usually poor, weak, and downtrodden) that disappointed air was just a little bit rather unflattering, the instant I noticed it; and amusing, days later, when I stopped to recollect the incident.
Money-maker. That is that which certain young musicians in the United States once labelled the woman's body as. And the honest human behavioural scientists will all agree with me when I state that a woman's instantaneous reaction to a suitor (real, or imagined) is with the question, "Can he take care of me - be it with money, or with power?"
Even women older and supposedly more respectable (for usually being grandmothers) are not left out of this charade. On that very same ride I have referred to above (and bringing in a spiritual aspect to the incident, which consists of the nudity of my mind which at least a couple of the women in the bus were privy to) one of them - old enough to be a grandmother, carrying a baby in her arms - had another (the young mother of the baby, sitting right next to her) say unto her concerning a young woman (a girl, then; a young housemaid in what was then my home, a very long time ago) that I could not help remembering often, being she whom I first knew - in almost all aspects and ramifications of the Biblical sense - and who I was thinking of at that very point in time, "Even that housemaid may now be a respectable woman driving her own car."
And the "respectable grandmother" with the baby in her arms then gave to the young mother a brief two-minute lecture on the work men had to do, in order to be men - obviously to make me (with her being certain of how clearly I would overhear her words) to make me learn why those of the women in the bus that had initially flaunted flesh now had their bodies properly clad, and accompanied by a disgruntled reaction to any glance of mine in their direction.
The incident may not have amused me as much as it did (proving - as it does - the word "money-maker" not being mere abuse, but apt description) had it not culminated in an aspect that proves even more conclusively my words concerning homosexuality and heterosexuality in both the man and the woman. For, as the journey proceeded, one of those that had flaunted flesh - initially (who, until she got to her destination, could not keep her eyes off the young mother) then gave - just before she alighted - what I knew to be a "come on," to the young mother; by granting what an innocent onlooker would take to be a good Samaritan's conscientious act in removing dirt from the latter's hair. And the "come on" may not even have been unwarranted, for it came just after the "respectable young mother" may have been reacting to the good Samaritan's "all eyes' " attention; by beginning breastfeeding, with no attempt to conceal the thereby exposed bosom.
"Come on's," in the male homosexual community, usually consists of rather gross means such as taking a bit longer than it took to urinate; to display in a public space the penis it took to urinate. But between lesbian women, come on's are subtler - as was that which I just wrote of; which would not have the average empty-headed man wonder why, between two absolute strangers, in a public space. Subtle enough to prove that which I write concerning women, money, and power; which is that the former considers the last two in a potential sex partner, only when the partner is male. When female, and with the lesbian bent; all that is taken into account is the other women's sexual orientation.
Which makes me wonder no more why the disappointed and disgruntled air with which the women in the bus took pains to conceal their bodies only after they had realised that I was bereft of money and power, yet uttered not one word concerning the obvious come on that would not have been a secret to the average one of them as the "green light" it obviously was; and that has me amused when I remember the grandmotherly words with which the "respectable grandmother" sought to have me learn - with words she knew I would overhear - that heterosexuality in me could be approved by the women in the bus (at the very least) only if I was a "respectably hard-working man;" but that lesbianism (even in a woman breast-feeding) could always be condoned by each and every one of them.
The word a woman would use is "smart."
The word a man would use is "brave."
The difference between the two marks the cunning with which the average woman strives to con a man into business, rather than battle - the pursuit of money, regardless of how emasculated the shoes he wears (be it as respectably as an employed intellectual, or as pitifully as an unemployed university graduate) rather than the pursuit of the power that marks the difference between a man and a woman. And, if you believe the words with which Fela Anikulapo-Kuti once criticized one of the richest womanisers that ever emerged from Nigeria; with absolutely no regard for the honesty with which even money should be earned.
How the cunning of women and the hypocrisy of men often strive to deprive a naive man of strength, even after he has seen through their antics enough to have acquired power; is not only a source of amusement to me, but of disdain - however contradictory that may sound. From the "You no need am" cunning (even from a woman supposedly wanting the best for me as much as a mother should) that has robbed me of over a decade of my life, if I do not count the years before I saw through the hypocrisy; to the war that even the foolish amongst them can wage on me (due to my being emasculated) and that the wicked have begun to wage on me because they have realised I will wage war on them for their being the rapists, the robbers, and the fraudsters that then sought to deprive me of even that strength - and (even more despicable) as much as the products of my sweat - it is obvious that the scribes and the Pharisees that locked The Christ out of life remain ever with us; when we're foolish enough to listen to mothers that want to emasculate sons, and fathers that would that a boy be not a man.
It takes a whole lot more than the vagina to give birth to a child. And the women that are lauded most for the agony of that child birth are even more usually the ones that are least willing to give birth to a child, most especially when male. Had Mary not been she that actually offended Jesus, women would not be they that beg God most for the offence today - under the pretext of being Christians. And they obviously suffer most the trials and the tribulations that they often mistake to be the products of sexism (even in a society that has apparently approved of their graduation from being liberated to being empowered) because The LORD God has seen through their antics.
The Virgin Mary, one of the most respectable of such women, from a generation preceding theirs, murdered Jesus so successfully (both with all the cunning characterising her gender, and with all the hypocrisy characterising that of the male) that he is known today by such as those that crucified him as "The Shame, Yesterday, Today, And Forever." And then, when they're in the presence of the simple religious, they replace the word "shame" with the word "same." As though a God that forgives can ever be said to be the same.
In this generation, they would have simply called him a loser - even when on their knees, in church, and supposedly worshipping him.
My own God is GOD, The Creator; and I can worship no other God: for we are told even by one of the sacred books that we should "Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them.' " He is my God, because He is the only God that knows in what an important part of life the "pleasure" should be most valued.
And that says a lot for the "You no need am" cunning that women are never forward enough to put into such words, concerning the pleasure that is their domain - and that they always believe is a man's goal once he begins to strive (however old he may be, however nigh the evil days are) for the independence of manhood. And on the side of the usually more blatant means by which men strive to drive the "You no need am" hypocrisy down the throats of other men, the "You no need am" hypocrites that locked The Christ out of life would receive the same condemnation today; even should they come as the respectful lawyers that then had him addressed as "Teacher," they would be told....
"For you have taken away the key of knowledge."
Human history amongst such of the wicked and the hypocrite is yet to know which words will be the final judgment concerning I, Ikoro Iyineleda; between the word "shame," and the word "same." Last year, while living the year in a house paid for at my mother's expense, it was more of the latter - according to those women who always want a man to be a neutered Alsatian carrying out the battles of life for them. Today, I ignore them with a fanatical passion. And by the end of this year, after having begun the year by moving back into a house built at my father's expense (and with the hypocrisy of heterosexual men having been made even more obvious by their tongues not being as troublesome) I will see whether I will eventually end up being judged by humanity as sternly as I know GOD, my God, will judge the hypocrisy of emasculation by the always heterosexual barbarians that call themselves men. For true manhood has absolutely nothing to do with the raging that is the forte of the bully.
Paul once lived in Rome two whole years at his own expense. He was not living with a father. He was not living with a mother. He was not emasculated. And neither can any man be emasculated who realises that even the word applies only to men.
Women are never emasculated. They never have a manhood to lose.
Men? They often deprive another of it.
I will not say more, for now.
The Lords In Fairy Empires is a fraternity that was found partly for such others with a homosexual orientation, or/and emasculated; be it by the cunning of women, or by the hypocrisy of men, or by both; that they may have not just a life, but L.I.F.E. - rather than being locked out of life by the "lawyers" that take away the key of knowledge.
I climbed into a public transport bus a week or so ago; and the ease with which at least two of the women that were to share the ride with me instantly took the opportunity to reveal parts of their bodies usually well-clad in public, made me realise how apt my assessment is of a woman's reaction to money and power - when in a man; as the women obviously thought was in me, and as it usually is in a man. However, the air - some time into the ride home in that bus (not only disappointed, but disgruntled) - with which the women then covered up those parts of their bodies that they had initially thought me worthy enough to leave unclad in my presence (covered up, obviously, after they had realised that I was most probably one of those that the more lousy in our generation would call "losers;" and who are usually poor, weak, and downtrodden) that disappointed air was just a little bit rather unflattering, the instant I noticed it; and amusing, days later, when I stopped to recollect the incident.
Money-maker. That is that which certain young musicians in the United States once labelled the woman's body as. And the honest human behavioural scientists will all agree with me when I state that a woman's instantaneous reaction to a suitor (real, or imagined) is with the question, "Can he take care of me - be it with money, or with power?"
Even women older and supposedly more respectable (for usually being grandmothers) are not left out of this charade. On that very same ride I have referred to above (and bringing in a spiritual aspect to the incident, which consists of the nudity of my mind which at least a couple of the women in the bus were privy to) one of them - old enough to be a grandmother, carrying a baby in her arms - had another (the young mother of the baby, sitting right next to her) say unto her concerning a young woman (a girl, then; a young housemaid in what was then my home, a very long time ago) that I could not help remembering often, being she whom I first knew - in almost all aspects and ramifications of the Biblical sense - and who I was thinking of at that very point in time, "Even that housemaid may now be a respectable woman driving her own car."
And the "respectable grandmother" with the baby in her arms then gave to the young mother a brief two-minute lecture on the work men had to do, in order to be men - obviously to make me (with her being certain of how clearly I would overhear her words) to make me learn why those of the women in the bus that had initially flaunted flesh now had their bodies properly clad, and accompanied by a disgruntled reaction to any glance of mine in their direction.
The incident may not have amused me as much as it did (proving - as it does - the word "money-maker" not being mere abuse, but apt description) had it not culminated in an aspect that proves even more conclusively my words concerning homosexuality and heterosexuality in both the man and the woman. For, as the journey proceeded, one of those that had flaunted flesh - initially (who, until she got to her destination, could not keep her eyes off the young mother) then gave - just before she alighted - what I knew to be a "come on," to the young mother; by granting what an innocent onlooker would take to be a good Samaritan's conscientious act in removing dirt from the latter's hair. And the "come on" may not even have been unwarranted, for it came just after the "respectable young mother" may have been reacting to the good Samaritan's "all eyes' " attention; by beginning breastfeeding, with no attempt to conceal the thereby exposed bosom.
"Come on's," in the male homosexual community, usually consists of rather gross means such as taking a bit longer than it took to urinate; to display in a public space the penis it took to urinate. But between lesbian women, come on's are subtler - as was that which I just wrote of; which would not have the average empty-headed man wonder why, between two absolute strangers, in a public space. Subtle enough to prove that which I write concerning women, money, and power; which is that the former considers the last two in a potential sex partner, only when the partner is male. When female, and with the lesbian bent; all that is taken into account is the other women's sexual orientation.
Which makes me wonder no more why the disappointed and disgruntled air with which the women in the bus took pains to conceal their bodies only after they had realised that I was bereft of money and power, yet uttered not one word concerning the obvious come on that would not have been a secret to the average one of them as the "green light" it obviously was; and that has me amused when I remember the grandmotherly words with which the "respectable grandmother" sought to have me learn - with words she knew I would overhear - that heterosexuality in me could be approved by the women in the bus (at the very least) only if I was a "respectably hard-working man;" but that lesbianism (even in a woman breast-feeding) could always be condoned by each and every one of them.
The word a woman would use is "smart."
The word a man would use is "brave."
The difference between the two marks the cunning with which the average woman strives to con a man into business, rather than battle - the pursuit of money, regardless of how emasculated the shoes he wears (be it as respectably as an employed intellectual, or as pitifully as an unemployed university graduate) rather than the pursuit of the power that marks the difference between a man and a woman. And, if you believe the words with which Fela Anikulapo-Kuti once criticized one of the richest womanisers that ever emerged from Nigeria; with absolutely no regard for the honesty with which even money should be earned.
How the cunning of women and the hypocrisy of men often strive to deprive a naive man of strength, even after he has seen through their antics enough to have acquired power; is not only a source of amusement to me, but of disdain - however contradictory that may sound. From the "You no need am" cunning (even from a woman supposedly wanting the best for me as much as a mother should) that has robbed me of over a decade of my life, if I do not count the years before I saw through the hypocrisy; to the war that even the foolish amongst them can wage on me (due to my being emasculated) and that the wicked have begun to wage on me because they have realised I will wage war on them for their being the rapists, the robbers, and the fraudsters that then sought to deprive me of even that strength - and (even more despicable) as much as the products of my sweat - it is obvious that the scribes and the Pharisees that locked The Christ out of life remain ever with us; when we're foolish enough to listen to mothers that want to emasculate sons, and fathers that would that a boy be not a man.
It takes a whole lot more than the vagina to give birth to a child. And the women that are lauded most for the agony of that child birth are even more usually the ones that are least willing to give birth to a child, most especially when male. Had Mary not been she that actually offended Jesus, women would not be they that beg God most for the offence today - under the pretext of being Christians. And they obviously suffer most the trials and the tribulations that they often mistake to be the products of sexism (even in a society that has apparently approved of their graduation from being liberated to being empowered) because The LORD God has seen through their antics.
The Virgin Mary, one of the most respectable of such women, from a generation preceding theirs, murdered Jesus so successfully (both with all the cunning characterising her gender, and with all the hypocrisy characterising that of the male) that he is known today by such as those that crucified him as "The Shame, Yesterday, Today, And Forever." And then, when they're in the presence of the simple religious, they replace the word "shame" with the word "same." As though a God that forgives can ever be said to be the same.
In this generation, they would have simply called him a loser - even when on their knees, in church, and supposedly worshipping him.
My own God is GOD, The Creator; and I can worship no other God: for we are told even by one of the sacred books that we should "Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them.' " He is my God, because He is the only God that knows in what an important part of life the "pleasure" should be most valued.
And that says a lot for the "You no need am" cunning that women are never forward enough to put into such words, concerning the pleasure that is their domain - and that they always believe is a man's goal once he begins to strive (however old he may be, however nigh the evil days are) for the independence of manhood. And on the side of the usually more blatant means by which men strive to drive the "You no need am" hypocrisy down the throats of other men, the "You no need am" hypocrites that locked The Christ out of life would receive the same condemnation today; even should they come as the respectful lawyers that then had him addressed as "Teacher," they would be told....
"For you have taken away the key of knowledge."
Human history amongst such of the wicked and the hypocrite is yet to know which words will be the final judgment concerning I, Ikoro Iyineleda; between the word "shame," and the word "same." Last year, while living the year in a house paid for at my mother's expense, it was more of the latter - according to those women who always want a man to be a neutered Alsatian carrying out the battles of life for them. Today, I ignore them with a fanatical passion. And by the end of this year, after having begun the year by moving back into a house built at my father's expense (and with the hypocrisy of heterosexual men having been made even more obvious by their tongues not being as troublesome) I will see whether I will eventually end up being judged by humanity as sternly as I know GOD, my God, will judge the hypocrisy of emasculation by the always heterosexual barbarians that call themselves men. For true manhood has absolutely nothing to do with the raging that is the forte of the bully.
Paul once lived in Rome two whole years at his own expense. He was not living with a father. He was not living with a mother. He was not emasculated. And neither can any man be emasculated who realises that even the word applies only to men.
Women are never emasculated. They never have a manhood to lose.
Men? They often deprive another of it.
I will not say more, for now.
The Lords In Fairy Empires is a fraternity that was found partly for such others with a homosexual orientation, or/and emasculated; be it by the cunning of women, or by the hypocrisy of men, or by both; that they may have not just a life, but L.I.F.E. - rather than being locked out of life by the "lawyers" that take away the key of knowledge.
L.I.F.E.
Lords In Fairy Empires.
titi lai lai.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Until even the term "male heterosexuality" is in oblivion (and heterosexuality absolutely extinct amongst men) there will always be women appearing to be more powerful than a man, and proving that supposed power with an utter lack of any regard for courtesy and respect - due to the number of men that have their brains within their groins, most especially because of their "You no need am" reaction to the power that should ever be that of a man.
"Help me kill him," is all that women can ever say, concerning the power they often deceive themselves they have over a man. And when they're shameless enough (as they're ever born to be) they even add the word, "Please."
And the raging barbarians then murder, believing they're flaunting manhood; and not realising that all they're doing is proving the immensity of the space between their ears, that will never allow them to see the women always mocking them behind their backs.
How often capital punishment is the reward given men when homosexual is that which makes me often want to break down into tears. But how equally often the murder comes about due to the cunning of women inciting the empty-headed barbarians into their characteristic raging is that which equally often makes me want to rage just as violently.
Those amongst the barbarians that have medical degrees still have the naive believe H.I.V./A.I.D.S. chose to slaughter so many male homosexuals merely because of another of their complex medical terms.
The even more simple choose to believe it was God proving how displeased He was at the bent in men - as though there has not been an equivalent bent in women for just as long; and as though those having the male bent are not persecuted in ways more vile than lesbians have been, if ever.
And if I was not still pondering over the issue, I would have come years ago to the conclusion that the prevalence of that bent in women (even when subtle enough to manifest merely as sexism and female chauvinism) is that which has lesbianism so much more condoned than male homosexuality is ever condemned, by a society dominated by the always heterosexual barbarians raging with brains within their groins.
Ikoro Iyineleda.
22nd of July, 2010.
"Help me kill him," is all that women can ever say, concerning the power they often deceive themselves they have over a man. And when they're shameless enough (as they're ever born to be) they even add the word, "Please."
And the raging barbarians then murder, believing they're flaunting manhood; and not realising that all they're doing is proving the immensity of the space between their ears, that will never allow them to see the women always mocking them behind their backs.
How often capital punishment is the reward given men when homosexual is that which makes me often want to break down into tears. But how equally often the murder comes about due to the cunning of women inciting the empty-headed barbarians into their characteristic raging is that which equally often makes me want to rage just as violently.
Those amongst the barbarians that have medical degrees still have the naive believe H.I.V./A.I.D.S. chose to slaughter so many male homosexuals merely because of another of their complex medical terms.
The even more simple choose to believe it was God proving how displeased He was at the bent in men - as though there has not been an equivalent bent in women for just as long; and as though those having the male bent are not persecuted in ways more vile than lesbians have been, if ever.
And if I was not still pondering over the issue, I would have come years ago to the conclusion that the prevalence of that bent in women (even when subtle enough to manifest merely as sexism and female chauvinism) is that which has lesbianism so much more condoned than male homosexuality is ever condemned, by a society dominated by the always heterosexual barbarians raging with brains within their groins.
Ikoro Iyineleda.
22nd of July, 2010.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
LORDS IN FAIRY EMPIRES
The Fairies Confraternity
also known as
LORDS IN FAIRY EMPIRES
Motto:
A friend loves at all times,
and a brother is born for adversity.
Highest Authority
The Fairy Lord
emasculated, homosexual, and must belong to no other fraternal organisation
Members
Fairies : Emasculated homosexuals
Lords : Non-emasculated homosexuals, bisexuals, and men that believe in homosexuality as one of the
cardinal virtues of manhood
Branches
Prides
Offices
central executive
executive
finance
public relations
social activities
Contact
e-mail : LordsInFairyEmpires@gmail.com
telephone number :
postal mail box :
P. O. Box 40104
Dugbe Post Office
Dugbe, Ibadan
Oyo State, Nigeria.
Applications for membership should be with the following information :
(1) Full name
(2) Complete address (including home address, e-mail address, postal mail box, and telephone numbers)
(3) Nationality
(4) Educational background
Membership is open to:
Dugbe Post Office
Dugbe, Ibadan
Oyo State, Nigeria.
Applications for membership should be with the following information :
(1) Full name
(2) Complete address (including home address, e-mail address, postal mail box, and telephone numbers)
(3) Nationality
(4) Educational background
Membership is open to:
(1) emasculated men
(2) homosexual men
(3) bisexual men
(4) men that justify the virtue that is homosexuality
(2) homosexual men
(3) bisexual men
(4) men that justify the virtue that is homosexuality
thank you for showing an interest in our organisation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)